[2004-02-01] CVS repository changes

This message was generated and sent automatically. It contains a
summary of the CVS commits over the last 48 hours. These changes
should be propagated to the public repository within at most a day
or two. Most probably, they have already been propagated.

[Announce] Mutt-1.5.6 is out.

Mutt 1.5.6 is available from ftp.mutt.org. This is the latest
snapshot from the development branch. It's also, I hope, the last
version of mutt that's traveling through a 56k analog modem for its
release.
Feature-wise, the most relevant news is that this version has an
"alternates" command instead of the $alternates variable, and that
subscribe and lists take lists of regular expressions.
Regards,
--
--
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.

tags 1385 +patch
thanks
I have at last found the time and energy to correct the bug I reported
ages ago. As bug #1562 (duplicate) says more precisely, the problem is
that the tag-prefix acts only on the first command of a macro, which
in my case was a no-op. The problem comes from the fact that mutt
macros are like C macros: textual replacement. So "<tag-prefix><F2>",
if F2 is bound to ab, expands to "<tag-prefix>ab". The "<tag-prefix>"
applies only to the *next* function, and here you are.

Re: Patch for "tag-prefix and macros" bug

Nicolas Rachinsky <list <at> rachinsky.de>
2004-02-01 23:27:14 GMT

* Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel <at> mamane.lu> [2004-02-01 23:32 +0100]:
> By reading the code, I found out about <tag-prefix-cond> and
> <end-cond>. These don't seem to be documented anywhere (except the
> ChangeLog).
http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html
> The behaviour wasn't consistent: In
> "<tag-prefix-cond>ab<end-cond>c", if there are messages tagged, only a
> operates on them and b and c operate on the current message, but this
> sequence is equivalent to "c" when there are no messages
> tagged.
That's the intended behaviour. Why is this inconsistent? The
functionality is useful, since without it, you can't do many things.
I 'push' some cleanup commands on entering a folder, without
tag-prefix-cond the commands would move away on the current message
if there are no messages to remove.
Nicolas

Re: Patch for "tag-prefix and macros" bug

Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel <at> mamane.lu>
2004-02-02 00:20:06 GMT

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:27:14AM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel <at> mamane.lu> [2004-02-01 23:32 +0100]:
>> By reading the code, I found out about <tag-prefix-cond> and
>> <end-cond>. These don't seem to be documented anywhere (except the
>> ChangeLog).
> http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas/mutt.html
I meant "in the mutt tarball", obviously. :) I hadn't noticed that the
code is new code, though: 1.5.5!
>> The behaviour wasn't consistent: In
>> "<tag-prefix-cond>ab<end-cond>c", if there are messages tagged,
>> only a operates on them and b and c operate on the current message,
>> but this sequence is equivalent to "c" when there are no messages
>> tagged.
> That's the intended behaviour. Why is this inconsistent?
Because the part that is skipped (if nothing is tagged) is not equal
to the part that operates on the tagged messages.
> The functionality is useful, since without it, you can't do many
> things.
I didn't say that such a functionality, if correctly working, is not
useful. In fact, I think quite the contrary: My first reaction was
"Wow, mutt will never cease to amaze me; it is even more powerful than
I thought".